Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southpaw Regional Wrestling


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Southpaw Regional Wrestling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are primary, YouTube or WP:PW/RS-determined unreliable. Just doesn't warrant its own article.  JTP (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  JTP  (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There was a whole discussion on this article before it was even created. If it warrants deletion than it shouldn't have been created in the first place. It warrants keeping. Jgera5 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Admin note: I converted your "ref" into a wikilink, with no other changes. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a discussion; those are declination reasons. There weren't two-sided arguments. Primefac hit the nail on the head with a declination reason and Chris Troutman with a note: To be notable you need many more journalistic sources and much more focus on critical reception.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's incredibly flawed logic, many articles are created even if they should not have been. It wasn't even approved so I have no idea why you would even get the idea that you should use that link as an argument.★Trekker (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hard delete, the fictional promotion is not notable from what I can see of the sources. FOX Sports is the only possibly passable one as far as reliable sources go that actually focuses on the subject in question.★Trekker (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.  Nikki  ♥  311   21:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Nikki  ♥  311   21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I see nothing in the sourcing that would indicate that this subject meets our inclusion standards. Being declined at AfC is not a reason to keep an article either. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.